Delete cipher put admin

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds one meaningful fact beyond them — 'soft-delete', implying the cipher is recoverable (restorable) rather than purged — which is genuinely useful and not contradicted by the annotations. It still omits admin/auth requirements and side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single four-word fragment. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified rather than concise; no sentence establishes scope, prerequisites, or effect, so the brevity costs the agent necessary information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, open-world mutation with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should state what gets soft-deleted, what admin context means, and what the body/form parameters are for. Only 'soft-delete via admin path' is provided, leaving major gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters; form, params, json_body, and even cipher_id have no documented meaning. The description adds nothing about parameters, only the word 'cipher' implicitly pointing at cipher_id. Far below the baseline 3 reserved for well-documented schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The phrase 'Soft-delete via admin path' gives a verb (soft-delete) and a route (admin path), but never names the resource (cipher) — that only comes from the tool name. Among dozens of delete_cipher siblings (delete_cipher, delete_cipher_put, delete_cipher_admin, delete_cipher_selected_put_admin, etc.), the description does not explain what 'put' or 'admin' distinguishes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of the many sibling delete/restore variants. 'Admin path' is the only hint at context, and it is not explained (admin privilege requirement, difference from the non-admin delete_cipher_put).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.